The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
The owners and GMs are trying to compete with other owners and GMs. Suter and Parise made as much money as they did because they were the best FAs this summer. They didn't make 10% extra because owners were calculating on salaries being reduced.
Player demands and agents are as much driving force for inflation as the owners are.
Some of these complaints are bizarre. Kovalchuk insisting he should be a $100M man in the summer of 2011 and having no problem with betraying the very idea of a salary cap when he signed a circumvention contract but if he lose a few percent of his mammoth salary he threatens to go back to Russia.
This is true. It's important to find the root of the problem to find out why we are where we are. A poster mentioned the 5% escalator the players have been utilizing to drive salaries up. I think that's a good start.
To address the player complaints, I think they're bogged down with having achieved a specific level of revenue together with the league.
Revenues have grown very well. The original deal was that if they exceeded $2.7 billion, their share would be 57%. HRR has grown nearly twice the escalator for the last two seasons-- after the economic collapse. The players seem to want to lock in what came BEFORE.
It's actually not unreasonable even if HRR stays the same (doubtful). That is where the good faith part comes from on the PA side.
Conceding the share on all future contracts gives the owners their assurance that overall the players will get less once we're past the current kerfuffle.
Tweak the numbers, but isn't that a feasible and fair framework-- one exception?
(Putting aside to what extent each side values the noneconomic issues.)
**** off Suter. It's because players like you were all about going for the payday that helped cause this mess.
25 million wasn't enough apparently.
If he wants to negotiate, why isn't he in that room.
It seems like a lot of these players want to talk to the media about their issues, it's too bad they don't use that energy to ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE A DEAL!
To address the player complaints, I think they're bogged down with having achieved a specific level of revenue together with the league.
Revenues have grown very well. The original deal was that if they exceeded $2.7 billion, their share would be 57%. HRR has grown nearly twice the escalator for the last two seasons-- after the economic collapse. The players seem to want to lock in what came BEFORE.
It's actually not unreasonable even if HRR stays the same (doubtful). That is where the good faith part comes from on the PA side.
Conceding the share on all future contracts gives the owners their assurance that overall the players will get less once we're past the current kerfuffle.
Tweak the numbers, but isn't that a feasible and fair framework-- one exception?
(Putting aside to what extent each side values the noneconomic issues.)
? How so? Everything i've read shows the players refuse to take less than what they are making now. All of their changes are geared to keeping their minimum total $ amount at exactly what it is right now.
I doubt you are saying **** off Suter if he had signed that deal to stay in Nashville.
He has every right to complain that a contract he signed may not be fulfilled by the Owners once a new CBA is put in place. Dollar amount isn't the problem here, honoring the contract is the issue.
He lied throughout the process and drove up his price. He knew all along where he was going but milked as much money as he could. He knew the cheapskate that Liarpold was and how he lied here about never selling to anyone that would move the team Both him a Liarpold deserve each other.
**** off Suter. It's because players like you were all about going for the payday that helped cause this mess.
Why is he wrong to take the most money offered? If your boss or a rival business offered you a ridiculous raise are you saying you wouldn't take it? The GMs are at fault for offering these salaries and the owners are at fault for not keeping their employees, the GMs, in check.
And the hypocrisy of signing a bunch of contracts in the 48hrs leading up to the lockout and then taking the position that you are poor and shouldn't have to pay those contracts is astounding.
No one blames him for cashing in. We blame him for whining like a baby about lucrative contracts, given that he just signed one. He looks like an idiot.
Owners are of course at fault for offering him that, and he's a hypocrite for crying about it as if he doesn't like it
Where did he complain about the contracts? He complained about the owners signing them and then not wanting to honor them.
(This is for last season, but the NHLPA has to trigger this for the cap to increase. They only opted not to once during this last CBA, and decided to trigger it shortly before this CBA was up)
I believe the CBA allows the two parties to negotiate any escalator, or even a negative figure.
More importantly though, the cap is set automatically on the basis of the completed year's revenues (subject to audit) and whatever the players' share will be. Once that figure is derived, the two parties can negotiate an escalator. For obvious reasons, the NHLPA has opted to trigger an escalator, but it doesn't have to be 5%.
To address the player complaints, I think they're bogged down with having achieved a specific level of revenue together with the league.
Revenues have grown very well. The original deal was that if they exceeded $2.7 billion, their share would be 57%. HRR has grown nearly twice the escalator for the last two seasons-- after the economic collapse. The players seem to want to lock in what came BEFORE.
It's actually not unreasonable even if HRR stays the same (doubtful). That is where the good faith part comes from on the PA side.
Conceding the share on all future contracts gives the owners their assurance that overall the players will get less once we're past the current kerfuffle.
Tweak the numbers, but isn't that a feasible and fair framework-- one exception?
(Putting aside to what extent each side values the noneconomic issues.)
I agree, this is a revenue argument more than anything and neither side wants to lock in until they feel they are protected from a fall in revenue. What I don't understand is why they both feel they need to lock in anything based on speculation.
I'm sure both sides have already done calculations for all types of revenue amounts, we also know they are not averse to calculations with multiple factors. What I would like to see them negotiate a scale of revenue, salaries and sharing upon which they would negotiate. Of course that wouldn't allow one side to trumpet their victory if they created a flexible framework.
Why is he wrong to take the most money offered? If your boss or a rival business offered you a ridiculous raise are you saying you wouldn't take it? The GMs are at fault for offering these salaries and the owners are at fault for not keeping their employees, the GMs, in check.
And the hypocrisy of signing a bunch of contracts in the 48hrs leading up to the lockout and then taking the position that you are poor and shouldn't have to pay those contracts is astounding.
Even Bettman admitted that the optics over the course of the last few weeks leading up to the lockout weren't the best.
Then you get the guys who led that pack sitting on the negotiation committee. I think the players are right to call out their fellow hypocrites.
The saving grace for them may be that they didn't know the details of what was coming, and where the owners will hold the line.
Maybe the NHLPA shouldn't have approved a cap jumped to $70+ mil going into a cba negotiation?
Can play this game all day...
what does that have to do with anything? Teams aren't required to spend to the cap.
I don't see anything wrong with what Suter said. It's nice to see someone actually calling out the own of his team rather than vaguely blaming things on Bettman.
Was Ryan Suter unaware that the collective bargaining agreement that he negotiated his contract under the parameters of was set to expire? Sounds like he should be upset with his agent, not his owner.
What a ****ing moron.
Did Suter ask for 25% of his money to be paid in a signing bonus? He knew the percent of HHR was going down and his contract shows it. It is like going on splash mountian and then complaining about getting wet even before the last drop
Did Suter ask for 25% of his money to be paid in a signing bonus? He knew the percent of HHR was going down and his contract shows it. It is like going on splash mountion and then complaining about getting wet even before the last drop
Even Bettman admitted that the optics over the course of the last few weeks leading up to the lockout weren't the best.
But that's all it is really...optics. These contracts had to happen, you needed to lock the guys up. It happens every year there is tons of money being thrown out for UFA and RFA. The owners (and players), despite how flawed it was, HAD to operate on the last CBA. I fail to see how those contracts have ANYTHING at all to do with CBA talks...
__________________
2012 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS LA KINGS!!! GO JETS GO!
Fun fact. Had the owners all internally agreed not to offer Suter top market value. The NHLPA would be suing them on collusion charges.
Damned if you do...
Maybe some of them did.
Devellano said there was an unwritten rule about offer sheets.
For anyone who calls out Suter for complaining, are they prepared to call out Leipold? He's orchestrating a lockout to demand rollbacks (a rose by any other name), lowered share, contract limits, and a change in UFA age. (Suter and ZP would have needed to wait one more year. )
There indeed was a rush to circumvent the intent and cap of the last CBA.
)
